10:48 AM » Nevada Supreme Court Upholds Two Trial Court Decisions in Favor of MERS
Published
Fri, Dec 21 2012 10:48 AM
by
MERS
-
Email
Link
-
Share
Facebook
LinkedIn
Digg
Google Plus
StumbleUpon
del.icio.us
MySpace
Yahoo! Buzz
-
-
Three-Justice Panel, Citing Prior-Court Opinion Affirms MERS' Authority as Beneficiary FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CONTACT: Jason Lobo Phone: 703.652.1660 Email: jasonl@mersinc.org Reston, Virginia, December 21, 2012 - MERSCORP Holdings, Inc. today announced that two recent opinions written by Nevada Supreme Court Justice Nancy M. Saitta affirmed trial court decisions holding that Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (MERS) is a valid beneficiary of deeds of trust in the state. Justices James W. Hardesty and Kristina Pickering also joined in each opinion. In Ashley v. MERS et al. , the three-justice panel relied on the Court's decision in Edelstein v. Bank of New York Mellon to affirm judgment in favor of MERS and two other defendants. In his wrongful foreclosure complaint to the Eighth Judicial District Court of Clark County, the borrower alleged that, due to the involvement of MERS as the beneficiary of the subject deed of trust, the trustee's foreclosure was fraudulent and should be voided. "This court has determined that MERS is a valid beneficiary of the deed of trust..." Justice Saitta wrote. "MERS, in its capacity as the beneficiary of the deed of trust, was capable of assigning its own interest in the deed of trust and to appoint a substitute trustee." In Sanchez v. OneWest Bank, FSB, et al. , the same three-justice panel affirmed the trial court dismissal in favor of the defendants. Here, the borrowers filed a wrongful foreclosure complaint in Clark County District Court containing various allegations, including that MERS was not a proper beneficiary and therefore the defendants lacked standing to foreclose. In affirming the dismissal, Justice Saitta and her colleagues also relied upon Edelstein in holding that any severance in the note and deed of trust did not permanently bar foreclosure. The Court held that because...